FNH changes story...
 

So NOW FNH is saying SOCOM isn't buying the Mark 16 after previously refuting said rumor and stating that SOCOM IS buying the Mark 16.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...he-scar-mk-16/

I wonder when they'll issue a statement refuting the statement that refuted the rumor that SOCOM wasn't buying Mark 16s... :rolleyes:

Marketing strategy?

Maybe they thought if they just said SOCOM was buying it even if they weren't that would force them to buy it to save face and not look like dicks but then it didn't work because you can't fool with SOCOM like that and they threatened to send some people over if they didn't redact the statement.

Please tell me you're not being serious.

What do you think.

It doesn't really surprise me, TBH. The market has been flooded with AR piston systems that perform just as well as the SCAR-L all while being much cheaper to buy. I'm not a member of SOCOM and so won't pretend to know their needs, but the Mark 16 just seemed redundant.

And the lesson is: Never get excited about a new weapon just because its manufacturer's marketing department over-hypes it, or even because it wins some DoD competition for a less-than-essential military requirement. A weapon needs to prove itself, usually through combat experience, before it can truly be considered an "improvement" over its predecessor. Until then, it really doesn't matter how rarely the weapon jams in tests, or how many times you can dunk it in water, etc.

Getting excited every time a major gun manufacturer puts out a new weapon is almost like getting stoked about a new movie from an acclaimed director, or a new album being released by a famous band: It may look/sound good the first time you experience it, but only time will determine whether or not it has longevity. This is something I think that teenagers (in particular) have trouble appreciating.

+1 on Matt's post. Field time is the only real prover of reliability. Gimmicks you've seen done by manufacturers like the sand mud water test don't really prove anything, except that the dust cover and drainage holes work. It's smoke and mirrors. Military contracts aren't that big of a deal either, since they will buy what's most economical and meets their standards, not what is necessarily best. SCAR's aren't economical in the least since they cost more per unit, and they don't offer that much more performance over existing systems, which any number of us could have told before the announcement was made if we weren't so stupidly starstruck over it. A piston design with a rail and flip up irons and whatever bells and whistles is still a 5.56 or 7.62 with an 18 or 20 inch barrel which may or may not be a fraction of a percent more reliable.

All this applies to the 416, ACR, piston ARs and pretty much anything new and wow we can think of in the last 10 years. It's fun to dream but sadly these weapon systems have no real place in todays world or economy, except in movies and videogames, which are just parts that further their idiotic hype. These guns are the reality TV stars and celebutantes of the firearms world, and we need to realize that.

XM29: the Duke Nukem Forever of firearms.

About 10 years ago, Ian Hogg (now deceased) wrote that military rifles had essentially reached a plateau where the current systems in service were good enough that there was nothing on the horizon that would offer an improvement in performance great enough to justify the expense of change, and that's just as true today.